You are here

Conflict of Interest or Expertise?

One thing that's good about local government is that so much of it is done by volunteers. Volunteers aren't professional politicians. They have something better to do with their time.

Yes, most of them do. But for many, government service is central to what they do with the great bulk of their time.

An article in the Alamogordo, New Mexico Daily News (12/27/06) focuses on the most basic and, apparently, insoluble ethics problem in New Mexico, whose governor is trying to push through ethics reforms: the fact that state legislators are unpaid "citizen legislators."

Legislators on the governor's ethics task force opposed giving themselves even a minimal salary or sizeable expense reimbursements (they get a daily stipend for the days the legislature meets).

They're apparently satisfied with their other jobs and proud of their volunteer status. And it's a small bonus that their legislative positions can do many of them a lot of good in their day jobs. As the article's author, Walter Rubel, writes, "What would be seen as a blatant conflict of interest in other states is considered 'expertise' in New Mexico."

And what about in local governments? Why are there so many lawyers and real-estate professionals in local government? Is it for their expertise? Or is there more to it than that?

For local government, this too is a central and insoluble ethics problem. Or has anyone thought of a way to solve or at least ameliorate it? If so, please share your thoughts.

Comments

Robert Wechsler says:

According to a now inaccessible article in the 11/26/06 Columbia Missourian, Columbia's mayor wanted to strengthen ethics rules to prevent appointments to commissions of anyone who works for an agency or business that has applied for funds from that commission.

According to the article, he wants to "exclude people with 'tremendous' amounts of expertise from participating in city government." Another form of the problem I refer to in my blog entry.

Robert Wechsler says:

Alaska is also dealing with the "citizen legislator" problem. The incoming Senate President feels strongly about the effect ethics legislation would have on citizen legislators:

"I have found that ethics is the easiest thing in the world to talk about .... But when it comes time to putting words to paper, you smack right into the Constitution and the civil rights of people to have work and to have jobs and to be able to have gainful employment." That is, employment outside government that might conflict with their government obligations.

The incoming House Majority Leader agrees, insisting that if someone doesn't fundamentally know right from wrong, a new law won't change that. It's funny, but I keep hearing people say, I can do it because the law doesn't say it's illegal; rarely do I hear, even though it's legal, I won't do it, because it's wrong.

The Senate President is seriously concerned about decreasing the number of people running for public office. But isn't there a serious argument that cleaning up government and making it so that anyone can run without begging for many thousands of dollars would increase the number of people willing to run for office? I have yet to hear of a jurisdiction that has run out of candidates after passing ethics legislation.

Even those supporting ethics legislation in Alaska appear to want to preserve the citizen legislature. They just want it to be clear what's okay and what's not. But would developers and their lawyers be in the position of having conflicts if they knew they could do nothing to further their personal and professional interests?

When there's so much intellectual dishonesty, as there is here, something's going on.

Robert Wechsler says:

A recent article that appeared in several Tennessee newspapers questions having so many real-estate developers and brokers in top municipal positions, especially in fast-growth areas.

It quotes Vanderbilt University law professor Stefanie Lindquist as saying that developers seek leadership roles because they have a lot at stake in the political process. "It has a stink to it. It looks like a small group of people are benefiting," even though that's not always the case.

The article goes on to give examples.

Yes, the municipal governments are gaining the developers' and brokers' expertise, but at what cost? Why can't they be consultants or expert witnesses at meetings and hearings, rather than have a vote regarding matters that involve their businesses and those of their colleagues? Aren't there other ways in which these people can give back to their communities, using their money and their skills in ways that will not undermine democratic values?